Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Jamuna Beharani Etc. vs Patarla Polayya Desibehera on 12 January, 1977 cites

Bansilal Abirchand vs Ghulam Mahbub Khan on 20 October, 1925

In the case reported in AIR 1925 PC 290 (Bansilal Abirchand v. Ghulam Mahbub Khan) in effect it has been held that a plea of want of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, though abandoned in one court, can be raised in the higher court. That plea was again a pure question of law cutting at the root of the maintainability of the suit in the court in which it was filed, and it was found in that case that that court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dhan Singh Yadav And Anr. vs Badri Prasad on 29 January, 1963

In AIR 1963 Raj 198, (Dhan Singh Yadav v. Badri Prasad) while recognising the distinction between the non-joinder of a necessary party and that of a proper party in a suit, it has been held that a party is necessary for the purpose of litigation when in his absence the court cannot pass an effective decree at all, and a party is proper whose presence would assist the court in the adjudication of the controversy.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Municipal Council, Rajamundry vs Simhadri Ranganayakalu And Ors. on 19 October, 1954

In the decision reported in AIR 1955 Andhra 107, (Municipal Council, Rajamundry v. Simhadri Ranganayakalu) it has been held that there is an essential distinction between a necessary party and a proper party to a suit. Necessary parties are parties necessary to the constitution of the suit and without whom no decree at all can be passed. Proper parties are those whose presence enables the court to agitate more effectively and completely the questions raised in the suit.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - K S Rao - Full Document

Shankerlal And Anr. vs Jethmal And Anr. on 7 April, 1960

In the decision reported in AIR 1961 Raj 196, (Shankerlal v. Jethmal) it has been observed that where a question of title is raised in ,a suit for specific performance between a vendor and a purchaser, it has got to be decided between the parties to the suit, even though this may have to be in the absence of some other person or persons who may be interested in the title of the property in question but have not been made parties to the said suit and therefore are not before the court Their Lordships state that the courts are bound to and should pronounce upon the efficacy or otherwise of the title in question in such cases though the judgment of the court in such an action would be only in personam and not in rem.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Musammat Bhagwati Kuer vs Babu Jagdam Sahay And Babu Ram Prasad And ... on 21 June, 1921

In the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1921 Pat 260, (Mst. Bhagwati Kuer v. Jagdam Sahay), Das, J. after approving the observations made by Farran, C. J. in (1897) ILR 21 Bom 229, (Kashi v. Sada-siva), ultimately held that the plaintiff in an ejectment suit must of course prove his title, but it does not follow that he must prove this title in the presence of the person interested to deny his title.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1